I don't know what the point is to learning tricks. It can create a crutch. I think the point is to find the best way to train ones eyes to see color values accurately.

I find that premixing my paint values on my palette, gives me consistent points of reference to relate to, so that the estimating of values in the scene before me becomes more logical and far less hit or miss. More often than not, the range of values that the eye perceives will exceed the value range available in paint. Merely coping what's in front of you makes it impossible to capture the essence of the value relationships in nature.

I also find that strings are helpful, I have tubed a string of gray values and also Indian and Venetian reds. I find it vere useful to have them ready on the palette when doing a portrait.

Can you tell me what you think when you look for value, do you compare to the neighbouring value or to a key value somewhere?

I have read that Peter Christian Skovgaard (1817-1875) , a midt 1800 danish painter, used a 12 value premixed palette for landscapes. I was in the "Golden Age" of Danish painting and all of the painters used very convincing values.
Many of the paintings were made in Italy., the place to go at that time.

I am not so sure that this Carder is cheating, because he actually compare by eye. He uses his little thing to help focus on the target. He also say that he is not using it much anymore.

Hi Everyone,
One of my favorite discussions ... VALUES! Here is another opinion. The blue glass referred to is as bad as the red gels that are out there for helping one see values. The glass acts as a filter, it does not add light or color, it can only subtract. The problem is that it does not subtract equally. It acts with greater effect on the reds, yellows, greens etc. differently from blue and to each other. It makes blue objects appear lighter in relation and yellow object appear darker. Therefore as an aid to seeing values, it is doing just the opposite by altering the relative difference between the values and thereby altering the edges of the meeting places of the value shapes.

The black mirror is only slightly better in that it does not alter the relative values of the colors but it does change the relationships within the darker values and softens the edges between the shapes, therefore limiting it's use in the darker range.

My advice to my students is to always beware of anyone trying to sell you something that supposedly helps you to see values. Squinting is free and has none of the pitfalls of the 'glass' methods. It is instantly adjustable, always with you and is free. Squinting will never let you down once you have mastered it. It is also invaluable in judging edges and there relations to values.

I don't know what the point is to learning tricks. It can create a crutch. I think the point is to find the best way to train ones eyes to see color values accurately.

Marvin is right. The way to develop a good eye and judgment is to rely on your eye and judgment, not some device.

Setting aside for the moment the limitations of paint versus light in Nature, which makes creating the illusion of reality a more complicated matter than merely matching the colors we see at the values they actually are, suppose we're using one of these devices, and it tells us what color things are. After we know what color is there, how do we determine whether that's the best color to paint it in order to make the best possible work of art?

I was actually hoping that we could explore the possibility of how to understand the relativity between the limited paint values versus the wider scale of natural light.

I have often wondered why some painters are better to express light while others never manage to. The answer, it seems, is primarily in the value range.

So, if I see a value on an indoor motif and choose to use it on the painting, would I not simply mix the value/colour in question and compare it to the motif before I use it?

Would it make any difference if I compare it by eye on the palette, hold up the brush or painting knife or hold up any other device with a sample of the mixture, as long as the paint sample is seen in the same light?

When the motif is seen outdoors and the painter is also outdoors in the usually stronger light, the relative difference between paint and daylight values must be the same as indoors, I guess, and the possibility to compare directly between the motif and the paint sample is also the same.

I was actually hoping that we could explore the possibility of how to understand the relativity between the limited paint values versus the wider scale of natural light.

I have often wondered why some painters are better to express light while others never manage to. The answer, it seems, is primarily in the value range.

So, if I see a value on an indoor motif and choose to use it on the painting, would I not simply mix the value/colour in question and compare it to the motif before I use it?

Would it make any difference if I compare it by eye on the palette, hold up the brush or painting knife or hold up any other device with a sample of the mixture, as long as the paint sample is seen in the same light?

When the motif is seen outdoors and the painter is also outdoors in the usually stronger light, the relative difference between paint and daylight values must be the same as indoors, I guess, and the possibility to compare directly between the motif and the paint sample is also the same.